A Proposal to Merge NCSG, NCUC and NPOC for More Efficiency in ICANN=?utf-8?Q?=E2=80=99s_?=DNS Work

[Sam Lanfranco]

This is a short response to Tapani's comments. 
If we undertake a formal exploration of ways for the troika to both be more
efficient in doing ICANN's DNS work, and examine alternative ways to use
ICANN's resources in our work on a more equitable and efficient, and
include with that an examination of possible merger/consolidation options,
we should come through that with structures and processes that better use
our resources and those of ICANN. 
Consider the ICANN resources that go into multiple parallel elections,
multiple online constituency sessions (literal or virtual) during ICANN
Conferences, and similar back-office demands on ICANN resources.
Consultation with ICANN on resource issues, for both travel and support,
would be integral to the process. 
Sam L. 
---- Original Message ----
From: Tapani Tarvainen 
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Sent: Sun, Jul 12, 2020, 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: A Proposal to Merge NCSG, NCUC and NPOC for More Efficiency in
ICANN’s DNS Work

Hi Tomslin,
 That is indeed the key problem here: too many executive positions
 vying for travel support that'd be more urgently needed for people
 doing policy work.
 But to do what Sam proposes in The Right Way (tm) would mean changes
 all the way up to ICANN Bylaws, we'd have to get CSG to agree etc - it
 would be a long road.
 However, something could be done without such heavy bureaucracy,
 if NCUC and NPOC were to agree. A few ideas:
 * Make a rule that NCSG EC members are also constituency EC members.
 The workload in NCSG EC isn't all that great, and that would reduce
 the number of executive positions vying for travel support by four.
 It might be best to make it automatic, tied to constituency elections;
 in NPOC they could be tied to specific roles in the ExCom (say, Vice
 Chair and Secretary), in NCUC maybe simply the two EC members who get
 most votes.
 * Change travel policies so that NCSG EC members do not get travel
 support by virtue of that position (they could of course still travel
 on constituency slots) and instead use the NCSG travel slots for people
 doing policy work, e.g., those NCSG PC members who aren't councillors,
 or others involved in important working groups or the like.
 * Start holding joint EC meetings. Perhaps first just invite all
 constituency EC members to NCSG EC meetings, with the goal of
 eventually holding no constituency-specific EC meetings at all.
 Those should achieve most of the goals Sam outlines without any loss
 of total travel support and be doable without heavy bureaucracy or
 changes in bylaws. Indeed I think just the respective ECs could do it
 by defining suitable internal rules and procedures.
 So it would just require NCUC and NPOC to agree (which admittedly
 might not be all that easy).
 And it would not prevent or hinder any attempts to get a more formal
 change done, on the contrary if such a cooperation would work it
 could pave way for changes in charters and bylaws.
 Tapani
 On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 07:02:27PM +1000, Tomslin Samme-Nlar
(mesumbeslin at GMAIL.COM) wrote:
 > 
 > Hi Glenn,
 > 
 > I think the hint is in this portion of Sam's proposal, "*second, the
 > organizational structure of the troika results in a considerable portion
of
 > ICANN travel support going to those in executive positions, offering
less
 > incentive for PDP/working group engagement*".
 > 
 > Travel policy will have to change, with the funds/slots reassigned to
"foot
 > soldier volunteers".
 > 
 > Cheers,
 > Tomslin
 > 
 > 
 > On Sat., 11 Jul. 2020, 09:47 Glenn Ricart,  wrote:
 > 
 > > Can we simplify without losing influence and/or funding?
 > >
 > > Glenn
 > >
 > >
 > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 11:02 AM Niels ten Oever <
 > > lists at digitaldissidents.org> wrote:
 > >
 > >> Dear Sam, hi all,
 > >>
 > >> I wholeheartedly agree with the spirit of your proposal. Every time
this
 > >> proposal is brought up though, the response is: but this will result
in a
 > >> smaller number of seats (and thus influence) and (travel) funding.
 > >>
 > >> Whereas we should try to prevent this decrease in influence and
 > >> resources, I actually the merger should take place anyhow because it
would
 > >> result in an enormous increase in terms of efficiency and a decrease
in
 > >> bureaucracy and opacity.
 > >>
 > >> Best,
 > >>
 > >> Niels
 > >>
 > >>
 > >>
 > >> On 7/10/20 6:13 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
 > >> > *A Proposal to Merge NCSG, NCUC and NPOC for More Efficiency in
 > >> ICANN’s DNS Work*
 > >> >
 > >> > Sam Lanfranco (NPOC/NCSG member) – July 2020
 > >> >
 > >> > This suggestion has been a long time coming. It contains a proposal
 > >> that should be considered as a topic for both “in house” and
broader global
 > >> stakeholder engaged dialogue. It will likely be received with some
 > >> resistance and consternation among our “in house” colleagues but
resigning
 > >> it to the dust bin without consideration and reflection would be
mistake.
 > >> >
 > >> > The collective mission of the three entities, NCSG, NCUC and NPOC:
 > >> referred to here as “the troika”, within ICANN can be simply put
as
 > >> advocating for and helping giving voice to the non-profit sector, the
 > >> public interest, and marginalized Internet users within the DNS
community.
 > >> Whether that is an adequate definition of the collective mission
within the
 > >> ICANN DNS remit may be an issue for further stakeholder discussion,
but
 > >> that issue is not germane to this proposal to merge the troika into a
 > >> single entity.
 > >> >
 > >> > First a bit of simplistic history. NCUC was constituted as the
first
 > >> stakeholder constituency within the troika. With the creation of NPOC
the
 > >> NCSG was created as the “uber” member of the troika. The initial
impetus
 > >> for NPOC was the DNS concerns of large global NGOs such as the Red
Cross,
 > >> Red Crescent, Salvation Army, and other organizations with an
affiliated
 > >> global presence. As their concerns progressed through ICANN those
concerned
 > >> organizations basically bypassed the troika and reached higher up in
 > >> dealing with ICANN. The troika role was mainly reduced to offering
 > >> stakeholder comments on the process.
 > >> >
 > >> > At the same time, over the better part of a decade there has been a
 > >> blend of cooperation and competition between the structures of the
troika.
 > >> There are “old timers” who still harbor some resentment toward
its
 > >> creation, and “newcomers” who wonder why there are sore spots.
 > >> >
 > >> > Leaving that history aside what is more important is that in
pursuit
 > >> of its mission the troika faces several problems. The first, in terms
of
 > >> the multistakeholder policy making process of ICANN, is that it is
the
 > >> weakest leg of the process stool. The troika /represents the concerns
and
 > >> interests/ of its constituencies. The troika cannot /represent its
 > >> constituencies/ the way the contracted parties, non-contracted
parties, or
 > >> GAC (in its special relationship) can and do. It has no formal
induction
 > >> process from its constituency, nor does it have formal accountability
to
 > >> its constituency.
 > >> >
 > >> > Think of the troika as a valiant and under resourced band of public
 > >> interest volunteers. Some of that band of have managed to wed career
 > >> advancement to troika service and sustain engagement. Most
(particularly
 > >> those from marginalized communities) have not. One result is that the
more
 > >> marginalized within the volunteer constituency face greater
obstacles,
 > >> resulting in lower virtual and literal participation. The troika
frequently
 > >> pleas for additional ICANN resource support to address this
challenge.
 > >> >
 > >> > The troika has difficulty providing adequate volunteer labor to
serve
 > >> is role in terms of ICANN PDP working group and document comment
demands.
 > >> The troika has difficulty recruiting candidates for the necessary
positions
 > >> dictated by the troika structure, by the demands of the GNSO, and for
other
 > >> ICANN activities.
 > >> >
 > >> > Despite the millions of constituent organizations and individuals
that
 > >> fall within the troika's mission and remit, the troika has difficulty
 > >> recruiting adequate new members to each of its three components.
Lastly,
 > >> while we hope we are voicing the concerns of the wider ngo and civil
 > >> society community, it is only our voice, translating what we perceive
to be
 > >> their concerns into our words. Better engagement and empowerment
would be
 > >> to give them more direct access to the microphone so they could
express
 > >> their concerns and we could be more accountable.
 > >> >
 > >> > Given this situation what can be done? There is a way forward and
it
 > >> draws on organizational wisdom found in other areas of human
endeavor. In
 > >> business it is the issue of too many managers and too few workers. In
 > >> government: too many bureaucrats and too few front-line workers. In
the
 > >> military: too many generals and not enough soldiers. In the troika
this is
 > >> further complicated by the fact that those in administrative
positions also
 > >> do double duty as front-line workers in ICANN’s policy development
and
 > >> other processes.
 > >> >
 > >> > The troika as now constituted demands multiple chairs, with
multiple
 > >> executive, policy, membership, finance, and other standing committee
 > >> demands. All of this from a mainly self-selected membership community
of
 > >> around 300 members, where around ten to fifteen percent actively
contribute
 > >> volunteer labor to the administration of the troika, to the
obligations it
 > >> faces to the GNSO, to the all-important policy development process
and to
 > >> related working group and organizational matters. This at the same
time it
 > >> hopes that it is adequately and properly representing the ngo
interests of
 > >> tens of thousands of organizations, and the public interest concerns
of
 > >> hundreds of millions of global citizens.
 > >> >
 > >> > While it is easier to fill positions that come with benefits such
as
 > >> attendance at ICANN meetings and strategic planning sessions, there
is
 > >> still a two-part bias against constituency member engagement. First,
 > >> personal financial constraints and work requirements make it harder
to
 > >> accept elected positions. In other ICANN constituencies participation
is
 > >> usually part of one’s job description. Second, the organizational
structure
 > >> of the troika results in a considerable portion of ICANN travel
support
 > >> going to those in executive positions, offering less incentive for
 > >> PDP/working group engagement. As well, for some it is less rewarding
to
 > >> participate in ICANN tasks without the benefit of face-to-face
engagement
 > >> at global ICANN meetings. This disincentive may grow as virtual
meetings
 > >> replace global face-to-face meetings.
 > >> >
 > >> > Of the 300 or so members within the troika about 50 sustain
relative
 > >> activity about half of that number that are highly active. Some of
the
 > >> “highly active” represent people with relative, if basic,
financial
 > >> positions and personal work obligations that allow, and may benefit
from,
 > >> participation. Others face engagement levels constrained by finances
and
 > >> work obligations. For those who hold membership but are relatively
 > >> inactive, we have little information. Many may have expected more
when they
 > >> joined
 > >> >
 > >> > What is the way forward? The troika should hold an internal
 > >> consultation to consider re-constituting the troika as a single
structure.
 > >> This would reduce the number of “generals” and the make benefits
of
 > >> participation more available to “foot soldier volunteers” engaged
in the
 > >> work of ICANN. There were historical reasons for creating the
 > >> NCUC+NCSG+NPOC troika. The overall mission and remit remain but there
is no
 > >> reason for the troika to remain as structured.
 > >> >
 > >> > The troika should initiate a cross-the-troika discussion looking at
 > >> reorganizing the three administrative structures into a single
 > >> administrative structure. This would free up more volunteer labor,
 > >> currently shackled with administrative duties (replicated across the
 > >> troika). More labor could do more in the substantive work of
stakeholder
 > >> engagement in ICANN's core DNS business. A single lean administrative
 > >> structure also removes the unproductive occasional competition and
 > >> bickering between the constituencies within the troika.
 > >> >
 > >> > This re-organization alone would not fully meet ICANN's and the
 > >> constituencies efforts to increase the participation from the global
 > >> constituency, and from marginalized DNS communities and individuals.
This
 > >> is an efficiency proposal. Greater participation is a separate
challenge.
 > >> >
 > >> > In conclusion, the proposal here is for the troika to open an
internal
 > >> discussion to consider re-structuring NCSG, NCUC and NPOC into a
single
 > >> administrative structure. How to do this, and what it would be called
would
 > >> be part of that discussion. A single structure would produce more
scope for
 > >> volunteer non-profit and civil society engagement in the core work of
ICANN
 > >> while at the same time presenting a more clearly defined single
entity for
 > >> expanding engagement by the wider global non-profit and civil society
 > >> constituency.
 > >> >
 > >> > Sam Lanfranco, NPOC
 > >> >
 > >> >
 > >> >
 > >> >
 > >> >
 > >>
 > >> --
 > >> Niels ten Oever
 > >> Researcher and PhD Candidate - DATACTIVE Research Group - University
of
 > >> Amsterdam
 > >> Postdoctoral Scholar (abd) - Communications Department - Texas A&M
 > >> University
 > >> Research Fellow - Centre for Internet and Human Rights - European
 > >> University Viadrina
 > >> Associated Scholar - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - Fundação
Getúlio
 > >> Vargas
 > >>
 > >> W: https://nielstenoever.net
 > >> E: mail at nielstenoever.net
 > >> T: @nielstenoever
 > >> P/S/WA: +31629051853
 > >> PGP: 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3
 > >>
 > >
 -- 
 Tapani Tarvainen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20200712/def18ddf/attachment.htm>